- From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 22:49:28 +0100
- To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- Cc: Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org>, "public-ldp-wg@w3.org Working Group" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>, Arnaud LeHors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
On 23 Jan 2014, at 21:58, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org> wrote: >> >> I know you wanted to avoid the confusion between the class and the >> object. > > make that "interaction model" > >> That would actually align with the rationale of changing >> rel=type to rel=interaction. That being said, I think it's fine to >> keep ldp:Resource/ldp:Container as values because a class is just a >> URI as others that can can be used as object. We would just make sure >> that by dereferencinng them, we found find the information about using >> them in the context of rel=profile and everything would be just fine. > > Defenders of using "ldp:Container" to identify the interaction model > have stated that doesn't bind us to using only one interaction model > to manipulate properties of RDF nodes of type ldp:Container. I'm very > curious how they will support that in the text that comes back when > you dereference ldp:Container. I propose something like > > "ldp:Container identifies a graph structure with the following schema. > It does not identify any particular interaction model for manipulating > nodes with that structure." Which schema? Do you have a proposal for defining this schema? Henry Social Web Architect http://bblfish.net/
Received on Thursday, 23 January 2014 21:50:35 UTC